I am still shocked at that rhetoric. I'm belgian, we have outlawed gun ownership (except under the most stringent conditions, and even then, you're not allowed to carry it - at best transport it in a manner that would take forever to get it and use it) and ... hey, look, firearms-related homicides are 10 times higher in the US (per 1000 inhabitants). And before you say 'but then people over there kill each other in other ways', that is only partially true, as intentional homicides per 1000 inhabitants are also 50% higher in the USA than in Europe. And thats just intentional homicides, that number does not take into account the number of people your cops shoot every year coz they were either carrying a gun or were thought to be carrying a gun, or cases in which one person shoots the other in righteous self-defense. You could easily say that one in every two people killed with guns every year would still be alive if guns wouldve been outlawed, the other one out of two is effectively someone out to kill another person by any means and a gun was just the easiest way. So yeah it still holds true : guns dont kill people, people with guns kill people ... its just that people with guns kill people a lot more than people without guns.

And presenting one such instance as an argument FOR gun ownership is silly. It's actually an argument AGAINST it. People will, from time to time, come unhinged, and that happens everywhere. And they will ALWAYS seek a way to turn that into a massacre. Giving them the constitutional right to own and carry guns just makes that very easy. It's enabling them, not stopping them.

I am not going to bother arguing about the loss of life, because I don't consider it relevant.

My value for the right to gun ownership compensates me for the trade-off of the still unlikely risk of being killed.

There I said it. You can't argue against it, except with iron and blood.

I do not agree with gun ownership for everyone, but the guy did pass all required background checks, etc. The system can never be perfect, but I'm glad he was able to use a firearm in his massacre than something else. He went off the deep end. Having a gun or not wouldn't have prevented that. What it did enable him to do was kill 12 people, instead of taking a bomb or other form of explosive device into that theater and killing hundreds.

"The Happy Land fire was an arson fire that killed 87 people trapped in an unlicensed social club called "Happy Land" (at 1959 Southern Boulevard) in the West Farms section of The Bronx, New York, on March 25, 1990. Most of the victims were young ethnic Hondurans celebrating Carnival.[1] Unemployed Cuban refugee Julio Gonz

There's nothing special about "firearms related" crimes vs the same crimes w/o firearms. If you ban firearms and robberies with firearms go down X amount and robberies without them go up the same amount, nothing has been accomplished.

It's offensive to ignorantly mislead people with such nonsense statistics. "Firearms related murders went down!" is not a logical basis for any conclusion when non-firearm-related murders go up as well. Violent crime rates increased in England and Australia with the passage of very restrictive gun laws. Funny how you're not discussing these facts.

There are massive cultural differences between the USA and European states. Again, ignoring this fact and presuming that differences in firearm laws is the source of the discrepancies in crime rates is, again, offensive.

We're not idiots. Making downright stupid arguments in the hopes that we're too dumb to be able to identify the plethora of logical fallacies you've thrown at us accomplishes nothing but to demonstrate that you're either not very knowledgeable of the case you seek to make or don't believe you can logically make it.

So you want citizens to be slaves to the state without means to protect their rights, and you want citizens to be slaves to the state without means to protect themselves from others who become unhinged. I have an idea. Let citizens shoot people who become unhinged. 50 people will never be injured and killed in a massacre if you don't try to enslave people and restrict their freedom to defend themselves. The slavery you advocate is a solution to a problem you create. Good reasoning.

Coincidentally, it's been the first things tyrants did in the 20th century before they went on to commit genocide. Do you factor this in when doing the math, so studiously, concerning saving lives with firearms laws? I suspect that task was too daunting and threatened your conclusion, which was already based on useless selective data, so you just didn't bother.

History is boring. Maybe we can just pray real nice and nobody will ever harm us and we'll have no need to protect ourselves or the people we love. Hey, if someone we love gets hurt or killed, we'll just pull the pansy card. Taking care of yourself is so last-century. You might suffer psychological symptoms if you act in a life-threatening situation and save someone's life. Better they die than you have to deal with stress over the fact that shit does, in fact, happen.

In the 21st century, we're all incompetent little babies. We don't deserve to be able to protect ourselves. Our lives just aren't worth it to the state. The state is god.

"And before you say 'but then people over there kill each other in other ways', that is only partially true, as intentional homicides per 1000 inhabitants are also 50% higher in the USA than in Europe."

How many gang members do you have?

"The County and City of Los Angeles are the

If the Atty General of CO is a liberal, he will call for 100 round drums to be banned because the theater shooter used one.

If the Atty General of CO is a conservative, he will call for everybody to stop buying 100 round drums because they jam, like the theater shooter's did.

***********************

Which one will get them off the street?

I am utterly amused

First, no police force in the 'developed western countries' is as abusive as the american police. Shoot/taser/pepperspray 'm first, ask questions later. No wonder if everyone they try to give a speeding ticket might just pull a gun on them.
And you claim you need guns to protect yourself against an abusive government, yet no government in aforementioned 'developed western countries' deceives (we're still waiting for the WMDs in Iraq), misinforms (the Axis of Evil vs 'hey, theyve got oil') and opresses (no right to privacy, spying on own population, agressive cops, number of people in jail) as much as the american government. Of course, thats just the opinion of those sadly overeducated west-europeans.

Second, I'm glad Einstein you would rather we compare the USA to Bosnia, a wartorn, predominantly muslim country where undereducation is sadly rampant, than to western europe. I can see your point.

It's just that bizarre that you would claim that modern western states somehow aren't capable of turning really ugly.

You don't have to go back into history beyond people living today to find a number of HUGE examples of atrocities enabled by disarmed populaces. Hitler, Stalin, and Zedong gave wonderfully harmonious reasons for why their little baby citizens didn't have the right to defend themselves either. They didn't say "We're going to socially engineer some things that you won't like, so you can't have these." Or "We're going to kill tens of millions of you. It's necessary. We'd better take these or you might interfere with these necessary sacrifices." They said "You clearly don't need these. The potential for violence is too high. Obviously, guns make people violent. You can't seriously think your government will do something terrible in modern times!" Just like you are.

Mankind hasn't magically developed since these very recent events. Man thought himself quite advanced and civilized at the times. But tyrants seek power and ignorant people gullibly give it to them. If anything, the false sense of enlightenment and security of modern man has enabled bigger atrocities than were possible hundreds and thousands of years ago. This isn't just theoretical: We've seen it happen repeatedly.

You've tactfully ignored the fact that you're arguing that man does not have the inherent right to defend himself. There's a very serious principled discussion you're just glossing over.

And the fact that you've cited statistics which are not evidence that guns promote crime, yet presented them as if they were. I guess there's no serious discussion you're skipping here. That was a pretty straight-forward insult to everybody's intelligence, as well as an admission that you're not very principled in your methods of persuasion.

So i offer statistics that can be - repeatedly - found on the internet, from such reliable sources as the united nations and such, and that is an insult to people's intellect. Of course, such insulted intellects would be totally unable to find these for themselves. You, on the other hand, offer no facts whatsoever, just a sentiment, and that IS better. Seems we have a vastly different idea of the meaning of the word intellect.

And of course modern states are capable of turning ugly. All those you mentioned though were governed by one allpowerful political party with a strong and undisposable leader. Modern dictatorships thus. On the other hand we have democracy-inspired particracies which should hold the worst excesses at bay since, if a government oversteps its boundaries, they'll get voted from power next time. Of course, the chance of this is a LOT lower in a particracy with only 2 parties than in a particracy with 14 parties. The closer the particracy resembles a democracy (more choice in who - or what - you vote for) the less chance of abuse. Dont get a gun to defend yourself, get a real democracy*

*mind that i also said we do not have a real democracy either. Just something that resembles it a little more.

"First, no police force in the 'developed western countries' is as abusive as the american police. Shoot/taser/pepperspray 'm first, ask questions later. No wonder if everyone they try to give a speeding ticket might just pull a gun on them. "

Backwards, the cops are antsy because people started shooting.  Heard of John Dillinger and Pretty Boy Floyd?

Tasers/spray are nonlethal and less risky than chokeholds.  Pretty hard to kill yourself or break your arm when a cop peppersprays you.

"And you claim you need guns to protect yourself against an abusive government, yet no government in aforementioned 'developed western countries' deceives (we're still waiting for the WMDs in Iraq),"

Actually the whole Security Council voted up that one...

misinforms (the Axis of Evil vs 'hey, theyve got oil')

Actually we get more oil out of Canada and Mexico than Iraq

"and opresses (no right to privacy, spying on own population, agressive cops, number of people in jail) as much as the american government. "

Horseshit.  Your own country is based on the Napoleonic Code.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=preventative%20detention%20belgium&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.193.9714%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=xFEQUMinKevRiAKP8IDABg&usg=AFQjCNFjwlfKqtSwVK0AuLkJ0bwSS4Dnng

read from the 22nd page.   You guys have no right to bail; you can be held up to a year on a felony charge before trial.  In the US the suspect is to be granted bail unless the imminent risk of flight is so great that it's reasonable to doubt the perp will show up.  If it's waived, the suspect is guaranteed a speedy trial.

That's just one of the abuses in your vaunted "JUSTICE" system

>>Of course, thats just the opinion of those sadly overeducated west-europeans.<<

I know what a banueil is, so your whole argument has a big fat * for "doesn't refer to guntoting, cop shooting firebomb flinging Africans"

what does an average citizen need tear gas for? how about an assault rifle? perhaps explosive? they don't. none of them are needed honestly but for the sake that there is a small chance some crazy bastard is trying to kill people then pistols are understandable. they are the only gun that i can even partially understand wanting for protection. when it comes to hunting a pistol wont always cut it. but there is never a good reason for having an assault rifle. they should be banned. anyone who honestly disagrees with me has to be messed up in the head.